As a devout Catholic watchdog who guards against evil secularism, Bill O'Reilly is concerned about affronts to the sacredness of Christmas which is, of course, a secular holiday not celebrated by all Americans and if celebrated, not necessarily done in a religious manner. And while real religious folks would say that Christmas is a time for helping one's neighbor, Bill cares more about things like the RI state tree which the RI Governor, Lincoln Chafee, has dubbed a "holiday tree," as did his Catholic GOP predecessor who got no grief from Bill about that truly mortal sin. Last night, Bill hosted the head of the Becket Fund, a group that defends religious freedom and which gives "awards" to those who defile Christmas. Not surprisingly, the top award was given to the RI Governor. Not surprisingly Bill used the opportunity to continue spreading his Christmas venom by continuing to attack Chafee. Peace on earth?

O'Reilly began by citing some past Ebenezer Awards. The examples cited were over 10 years old. He and his guest, Kristina Arriaga of the Beck Fund for Religious Liberty spoke first about the Santa Monica Nativity controversy which was aided and abetted by Fox News and O'Reilly and which won an "Ebenezer Award," this year. Bill used his favorite word, one picked up by a Jewish guy who blames the Jews for the War on Christmas, to describe atheist "pinheads." The top award went to Chafee, one of O'Reilly's favorite scapegoats.

Arriaga misrepresented Chafee's in her comment that because Chafee was "so afraid that there would be Christmas caroling in city hall" (State House actually) "that he treated the release of the display" (Lighting, actually) as a matter of national security because he announced it thirty minutes beforehand.

Fact Check - Chafee's decision was based on last year's experience when protesters, urged on by Fox News and right wing radio, took over the State House, during the tree lighting, and drowned out a children's choir that was singing holiday songs. The governor had to apologize to the children and their upset parents for the mob's behavior.

Bill said that his beef with Chafee is over the name of the tree. He claimed that Chafee said that he can't call it a Christmas Tree because "that offends people who aren't Christian." Bill suggested that Chafee is offending the 80% of Americans who are Christian. What Bill doesn't apparently know is that not all Christians focus on the religious aspects of Christmas.

Fact Check: Bill is cleverly manipulating language to suggest that Chafee said that if the tree were called a Christmas Tree, people would be offended. He has never said anything of the sort - certainly not on O'Reilly's program. In 2011 he cited RI's founding on the idea of religious tolerance and said that "If it's in my house it's a Christmas tree, but when I'm representing all of Rhode Island I have to be respectful of everyone."

Arriaga said that this mistreatment of Christmas is a big problem in society. O'Reilly wanted to know why the "secular-progressives" are "attacking displays in the public square." Rather than citing 1st Amendment concerns, Arriaga said "it bothers them because they want the state to be the only place where the get their values and their religion." (WTF???) Arriaga cited her parents' experience in Cuba. She claimed that "we are religious beings...and we should be able to carry these convictions to our workplace and outside." When she asserted that "no one should be complaining about the expression of religion," Bill interjected "as long as it's not forced on the folks" and claimed that he wasn't bothered by other displays "in the proximity." Really? He went ballistic over an atheist display in the state of Washington. Thanks to his coverage, workers in the governor's office were inundated with hostile e-mails.

He then cited his newspaper column which trashes Governor Chafee and doesn't mention how last year's caroling protesters were a right wing mob.

@jan: Please don’t refer to O’Reilly as a super hero, especially if you’re using the term in a derogatory fashion. The heroes do NOT try to “control” anyone—that’s the job of the villains.

If anything, O’Reilly’s closest comic-book counterparts would be the current Lex Luthor (whose own ego would give O’Reilly’s a run for the money) and Dr Doom (another egomaniac who has, on at least one occasion, actually taken control of the whole world—being the egomaniac he is, he soon realized how boring it was because there was no one to challenge him; that actually was a fascinating storyline). Not only do both men have enormous egos but they all too often show a public face that belies their real intentions (those who oppose them see each man’s real face—metaphorically for Dr Doom—but the public at large is often blind to their evil). For instance, Luthor is a megatycoon (kind of like Donald Trump, but not nearly as publicly crazy) who funds charities and creates jobs but he’ll use all sorts of shell companies to get the charities closed or take away their base of operations and to outsource jobs (hence, the public sees the good side but has little idea of the bad side; by contrast, is there anyone who doesn’t see Trump’s bad side even when he’s doing “good”?). And Doom is actually the leader of a country which he will defend vigorously (at one point, his country was supposed to be located deep behind the Iron Curtain yet it was a fully independent monarchy, one that even the might of the Soviet Army couldn’t crush) and the overwhelming majority of his people loved him absolutely and unquestioningly—although his darker side would appear in private (a little child inadvertently said that Doom scared her and while her mother begged and pleaded that she didn’t know what she was saying, Doom bent down and actually comforted the child; moments later, he tells one of his soldiers to see that the mother “has an accident” for the child’s insolence); there were some who saw Doom as a tyrant and many of those who loved him so absolutely still feared him but Doom never used his people as human shields or as cannon fodder nor did he get the country involved in unnecessary conflicts.